FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Citizens for Waters, et al. ) MUR 7522 

 ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND 

COMMISSIONERS SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

In this matter, we voted to approve the Office of General Counsel’s recommendations to 

dismiss the allegations that Maxine Waters, Citizens for Waters, and David Gould in his official 

capacity as treasurer violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f), and that Families & Teachers for Antonio 

Villaraigosa for Governor 2018 violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A). 

For the purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), we attach our proposed Factual and Legal 

Analysis in this matter. 

__________________________________ December 3, 2021 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

_________________________________ December 3, 2021 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ December 3, 2021 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

MUR752200094
2 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

 

RESPONDENTS: Citizens for Waters and David Gould MUR 7522 

 in his official capacity as treasurer 

 Maxine Waters 

 Families & Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa

 for Governor 2018 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Complaint alleges that Families & Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor 

2018 (“Families & Teachers”), a state independent-expenditure committee, made, and 

Representative Maxine Waters and Citizens for Waters (“Committee”) accepted, an excessive 

contribution in the form of a $25,000 payment for the proportionate cost for Villaraigosa’s name 

to appear on the Committee’s “slate mailer.” For the reasons set forth below, the Commission 

dismisses the allegations pursuant to Heckler v. Chaney.

1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Committee is the principal campaign committee of Representative Maxine Waters of 

the 43rd Congressional District in California. Families & Teachers was a state independentexpenditure committee registered in California that disclosed the receipt of corporate donations 

and individual donations in excess of the federal contribution limits.2 

1

 470 U.S. 821 (1985).

2

 According to the California Secretary of State’s Office, Families & Teachers “terminated” as of 

September 27, 2018, and it filed its last disclosure report on October 5, 2018. See http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/

Campaign/Committes/Detail.aspx?id=1404354. Individuals and corporations in California are subject to the same 

contribution limits for state candidates, which in 2018, were $29,200 to gubernatorial candidates, $7,300 to other 

state-wide candidates, and $4,400 to state legislative candidates. See Calif. Gov. Code § 85300 et seq.; 

http://www.fppc.ca.gov. 

MUR752200095
3 

In connection with the June 5, 2018, primary election in California, the Committee 

produced and distributed a “slate mailer” listing federal and nonfederal candidates Waters 

supported, including Villaraigosa, a candidate for Governor.3 The Committee reported receiving 

$25,000 from Families & Teachers on May 25, 2018, for “slate mailer payment,” which the 

Committee describes in its response as a reimbursement of the mailer costs attributable to 

Villaraigosa.4 On December 6, 2018, the Committee disbursed $13,000 to Families & Teachers 

as a partial refund.5

Complainant alleges that the Committee and Waters accepted an excessive contribution 

from Families & Teachers when the Committee accepted the $25,000 payment.6

 Complainant 

bases the allegation on the Committee’s purported failure to comply with Advisory Opinion 

2004-37 (Citizens for Waters), concerning a “brochure” that the Committee proposed to produce 

and distribute expressly advocating the election of clearly identified federal and nonfederal 

candidates in the 2004 general election.7 The advisory opinion request, however, was expressly 

3

 See Compl. at 3; Committee and Maxine Waters Resp. (“Committee Resp.”) at 1 (Dec. 8, 2018); Families 

and Teachers Resp. at 1 (Dec. 12, 2018). The Commission notes that the Complaint and responses describe the 

mailer as a “slate mailer.” Under the Act, the costs incurred to prepare, display, mail or otherwise distribute printed 

slate cards, sample ballots, or other printed listings of three or more candidates for public office are exempt from the 

definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(v), (9)(B)(iv). Though neither the 

Complaint nor the Responses attach the mailer at issue, as noted in an Advisory Opinion prepared for the Waters 

Committee in 2004, previous mailers prepared by the Waters Committee featured “certain candidates . . . more 

prominently than others,” and included “brief commentary by Representative Waters about the candidates listed,” 

making the mailer “not simply a sample ballot.” Advisory Op. 2004-37 (Waters) at 1 n.1. See also Advisory Op. 

2008-06 (Virginia Democrats) at 3 (finding that “additional biographical information, descriptions of candidates’ 

positions on the issues, or statements of party philosophy, do not qualify under the slate card exemption”). Thus, the 

term “slate mailer” does not appear to apply to the mailer in this matter. 

4

 See Citizens for Waters 2018 July Quarterly Report (July 13, 2018) at 76 (attach. to Compl. at Ex. A); 

Committee Resp. at 1-2. The Complaint cites a $1 million contribution to Families and Teachers from Michael 

Bloomberg shortly before Families & Teachers disbursed $25,000 to the Committee. Compl. at 3, Ex. D. 

5

 See Citizens for Waters 2018 Year- End Report (Jan. 15, 2019) at 8. The Committee made this payment to 

Families & Teachers after the Complaint was filed in this matter. 

6

 Compl. at 3. 

7

 Id. at 2. 

 

MUR752200096
4 

limited to “the arrangements with, and payments by, any Federal candidates who will be 

included in the proposed brochure,” and explicitly excluded the application of the Act and 

Commission regulations to arrangements with and payments by non-federal candidates or their 

committees.8

 The Commission concluded the Committee’s brochure would not constitute 

support of, or be an in-kind contribution to, the federal candidates listed in the brochure, 

provided the candidates made reimbursements for attributable costs of the brochure in a timely 

manner.9 Further, the Commission concluded that reimbursements by federal candidates for 

their attributable portion of the costs would not constitute support of, or be contributions to, the 

Committee.10

The Complaint alleges that the $25,000 payment is not a valid reimbursement to the 

Committee under AO 2004-37 because the payment came from Families & Teachers, not 

Villaraigosa or his committee.11 Respondents assert that Families & Teachers’ reimbursement to 

the Committee complied with AO 2004-37, and that the advisory opinion does not require the 

candidate make the reimbursement, only that the reimbursement be made in an amount equal to 

the proportionate share of the costs attributable to the candidate.12

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

8

 AO 2004-37 at 3.

9

 Id. at 2.

10 Id. The advisory opinion also states that to the extent any reimbursement by a candidate’s authorized 

committee exceeds the costs attributed to that candidate, such excess reimbursement would constitute a contribution 

and would be subject to the Act’s applicable contribution limits. Id. at 4. The Committee states that it issued partial 

refunds to Families & Teachers and other committees for the portion of their initial payments that exceeded their 

proportionate share of the costs. Committee Resp. at 3, n.1. As noted, the Committee refunded $13,000 to Families 

& Teachers.

11 Compl. at 3.

12 Families & Teachers Resp. at 2, 3; Committee Resp. at 3.

MUR752200097
5 

During the 2018 election cycle, persons were limited to making a contribution to a 

candidate or his or her authorized committee that did not exceed $2,700 per election.13 No 

candidate or political committee shall knowingly accept any contribution or make any 

expenditure in violation of the provisions of 52 U.S.C. § 30116.14 A Commission advisory 

opinion may be relied upon by any person involved in any specific transaction which is 

indistinguishable in all material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which 

such advisory opinion was rendered.15 

AO 2004-37 was specifically limited to reimbursements by federal candidates to appear 

in Waters’s brochure, and thus, the activity identified in the Complaint is arguably not 

indistinguishable in all material respects from the activity in that advisory opinion.16 By the 

same token, the Complainant’s suggestion that this activity necessarily violates the Act’s 

contribution limits because the activity differs from the AO 2004-37 activity is not persuasive. 

In a recent matter, MUR 7448, the Commission found that the California Democratic 

Party’s (“CDP’s”) payment of $35,000 to the Committee for the cost of U.S. Senate candidate 

Kamala Harris’s appearance in the Committee’s October 2016 mailer was not an excessive 

contribution to Harris’s committee, Kamala Harris for Senate. Because CDP’s $35,000 payment 

was permissible under the CDP’s coordinated party expenditure authority, and because it 

promptly reimbursed the Committee for the cost of Harris’s appearance in the mailer, the 

13 See 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a); 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b).

14 See 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f).

15 52 U.S.C. § 30108(c)(1)(B).

16 See AO 2004-37 at 3; 52 U.S.C. § 30108(c)(1)(B). Cf. MUR 7101 (Senate Majority PAC, et al.) 

(contributions described in the Complaint fall within the Act’s protection for persons entitled to rely on an advisory 

opinion).

MUR752200098
6 

Commission found no reason to believe the Committee and CDP made, and Kamala Harris for 

Senate accepted, an excessive contribution.17 It does not appear, however, that the Commission 

has considered whether a state IEOPC can pay the cost for a state candidate to appear in a mailer 

like the Committee’s. Nonetheless, it appears that the net amount paid, subtracting the $13,000 

refund, to include Villaraigosa’s name in the mailer was $12,000, a somewhat modest amount. 

Under these specific circumstances, the Commission exercises its prosecutorial discretion and 

dismisses the allegations in this matter.18 

17 MUR 7448 Certification (July 23, 2019) and Factual and Legal Analysis at 4. 

18 See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 

MUR752200099